generate_gpt_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful constraint (premium plan required), but says nothing about whether generation is async (sibling wait_for_generation hints it is), rate limits, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded, but the bare endpoint path 'POST /uapi/v1/imagen/gpt-image-2' is noise that consumes space without helping the agent, and the plan requirement is tacked on rather than integrated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with 14% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin; an agent gets no guidance on optional inputs, async behavior, or the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% — just one of seven parameters (resolution) is documented. The description adds no meaning for mode, file_urls, background, ref_history, or aspect_ratio, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate an image') and names the underlying model 'GPT Image 2', which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings generate_image and generate_grok_image. The raw endpoint URLs add nothing an agent needs, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only routing signal is the implicit model choice; the description never says when to pick this over generate_image or generate_grok_image, nor when a premium plan makes it unavailable. It notes 'Premium plan required by snapgen', which is a prerequisite but not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.